Google triumphant, beats back billion dollar Viacom lawsuit

YouTube does in fact qualify for robust "safe harbors." In a case with massive …

It was a billion dollar lawsuit, and YouTube has won—for now. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York has rejected Viacom's claim that Google's premier video site was guilty of massive copyright infringement. Instead, the court has granted Google's motion for summary judgment and asserted that YouTube fully qualifies for "safe harbor" protections under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

"This is an important victory not just for us, but also for the billions of people around the world who use the Web to communicate and share experiences with each other," Google just announced on its blog. "We’re excited about this decision and look forward to renewing our focus on supporting the incredible variety of ideas and expression that billions of people post and watch on YouTube every day around the world."

Viacom had contended that most of the "safe harbor" provisions in the DMCA did not protect Google from Viacom's infringement claims. Groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation argued that if Viacom's arguments prevailed, they would severely compromise the viability of online content providers both huge and small, and would gut the DMCA's protections for sites that host or transmit other people's content. eBay, Facebook, Ask.com, and Yahoo! similarly weighed in on the case.

"The present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently," the court noted, "when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."

Viacom, it should be noted, doesn't agree with the sweeping judicial ruling (which was a relatively sparse 30-pager), as is evident from the press statement we just received. Viacom intends to appeal the case.

"We believe that this ruling by the lower court is fundamentally flawed and contrary to the language of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the intent of Congress, and the views of the Supreme Court as expressed in its most recent decisions," Viacom says.

Furthermore: "We intend to seek to have these issues before the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit as soon as possible. After years of delay, this decision gives us the opportunity to have the Appellate Court address these critical issues on an accelerated basis. We look forward to the next stage of the process."

Viacom's case wasn't about today, it was about infringement *prior* to Google's deployment of rights management tools after acquiring Youtube. If safe harbor depends on the presence of such tools, there remains an argument for damages from the period of infringement in their absence.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

When did Limewire ever attempt to comply with the DMCA?

At the same time Youtube was also making the "attempt". Get serious, youtube made itself what it is today by stealing the shirts off the backs of content makers, be they giant corporations or the little guys.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

When did Limewire ever attempt to comply with the DMCA?

At the same time Youtube was also making the "attempt". Get serious, youtube made itself what it is today by stealing the shirts off the backs of content makers, be they giant corporations or the little guys.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

When did Limewire ever attempt to comply with the DMCA?

At the same time Youtube was also making the "attempt". Get serious, youtube made itself what it is today by stealing the shirts off the backs of content makers, be they giant corporations or the little guys.

I'm not so sure Viacom actually tried to entrap Google, so much as I think their separate divisions don't know what each other are doing. Hence the PR folks going bonkers over Google removing legit uploads when Viacom legal sent takedown notices.

Still, it shows Google's willingness to comply with any and all takedown notices under the DMCA.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

Why is it any entities responsibility to comply with laws outside that of their native land? By that reasoning it's perfectly fine for China to get ticked that people outside of China post about democracy, freedom, and free elections as well as sue them for their unpatriotic speech because they don't abide by Chinese law. Countries are free to enact whatever laws they wish, they aren't however free to expect every other sovereign nation to just up and comply.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

Why is it any entities responsibility to comply with laws outside that of their native land? By that reasoning it's perfectly fine for China to get ticked that people outside of China post about democracy, freedom, and free elections as well as sue them for their unpatriotic speech because they don't abide by Chinese law. Countries are free to enact whatever laws they wish, they aren't however free to expect every other sovereign nation to just up and comply.

No one is expecting them to.

But it doesn't help the cause for people who hate DRM for legit reasons when you have people spouting off at the mouth with an entitled self centered I should be able to download whatever the hell I want attitude about file sharing.

Its shit like hosting a server in another country just to get through a loop hole that backs up entertainment companies arguments for DRM.

When you support piracy you are no better then the company who implements DRM in their products to protect against it fair and simple.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

I'm sorry, but are you ticked off because your country sold out to corporate interested and you can't even brake some DVD encryption for personal use? I'm sorry but that's your fault, not mine.

Now excuse me while I load up my new Battlestar Galactica DVDs to my home media server while I have a drink to celebrate the fact that (at least for now) my government doesn't have to do shit about the DMCA.

BTW: I give all content owners the chance to make me their customer, but when they lock me out because of my IP address, won't accept my credit card because of my country or won't ship to my house, that's when I fly the Jolly Roger

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

I'm sorry, but are you ticked off because your country sold out to corporate interested and you can't even brake some DVD encryption for personal use? I'm sorry but that's your fault, not mine.

Now excuse me while I load up my new Battlestar Galactica DVDs to my home media server while I have a drink to celebrate the fact that (at least for now) my government doesn't have to do shit about the DMCA.

Where in the hell does supporting pirate bay have anything to do with supporting personal use?

The Appeals Court will not be impressed by Viacom's sleezeball tactic of saving, then dumping on YT 100000 videos. And the sleezeball tactic backfired backfired !!! The Appeals Court, as was the District Court, will be impressed by YT pulling an all-nighter and getting the 100000 down, a great show of good-faith by YT in the face of bad-faith by Viacom.

Now excuse me while I load up my new Battlestar Galactica DVDs to my home media server while I have a drink to celebrate the fact that (at least for now) my government doesn't have to do shit about the DMCA.

Where in the hell does supporting pirate bay have anything to do with supporting personal use?

Break the DVD encryption I do it all the time.

Then you've just broken the DMCA and committed an illegal act punishable under civil law. That's his point.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

Ohhhhhhh very nice try sir!

I hear this argument over and over again from certain people who back a certain camp - usually trying to tell the world that its their fault that these poor companies are pushing themselves to do these things.

Kind of reminds me of how wife beaters go about "see what you made me do to you? why do you do that to me" crap. Or another example would be a politician putting something totally unrelated forward and crying "think of the children", "Pedos" or "Terrorists".

Restrictive DRM was coming anyway, it offers the maggots a lot more control and strips away that silly thing (that you ahve in the US) know as "fair use"... little by little.

And as pointed out by others, my country (Sweden) has its own laws and does not have to abide by yours - even though it seems maggots from your country can (illegally) influence my country's government.

EDIT:Forgot to mention, loved the part about how it took viacom months to gather 100000 vids, and then YT took it all down in a day... fantastic, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE you big G! Lovvvvve you!

Now excuse me while I load up my new Battlestar Galactica DVDs to my home media server while I have a drink to celebrate the fact that (at least for now) my government doesn't have to do shit about the DMCA.

Where in the hell does supporting pirate bay have anything to do with supporting personal use?

Break the DVD encryption I do it all the time.

Then you've just broken the DMCA and committed an illegal act punishable under civil law. That's his point.

Yes indeed, thanks Nagumo.

Also I would like to add, that we (as in both US citizens and people that will be threaten by ACTA) should support anything that makes a mockery of the DMCA. Because I think most of us would agree that it's a BS law.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

I've never heard of argument for using DRM because other countries refuse to adopt DMCA. For example, have they dropped use of DRM in US, which is obviously supporting DMCA? Nope. Have they dropped DRM in France and UK which has been fairly good at complying with the lobbyists? Nope.

But in all seriousness and at the risk of sounding like a troll, I don't see a tremendous difference between something like Limewire and a lot of the stuff that was on Youtube.

Exactly, this whole thing seems very two-faced. Sites that generate revenue / have a business model are considered safe harbours, while sites like The Pirate Bay are held responsible for the content discovered by their search engines.

Uh, the difference between the applicability of safe harbour provisions on sites like YouTube and The Pirate Bay isn't about whether they generate revenue. The difference, to put it simply, is summed up in the the name "The Pirate Bay". The difference between mostly legally content, and almost completely illegal content (and being totally open about encouraging illegality, and doing nothing to take down infringing content when notified).

One key point to take into consideration is that The Pirate Bay is based in a small part of the world called "Not the USA", which means they can wipe their ass with the DMCA take down notices.

Of course rights holders don't like that and want to force feed the DMCA to the rest of the world (ACTA).

Sigh, I remember a time when sovereignty used to be a good thing.

Sigh and its people like you that just help entertainment companies justify their need for DRM.

Ohhhhhhh very nice try sir!

I hear this argument over and over again from certain people who back a certain camp - usually trying to tell the world that its their fault that these poor companies are pushing themselves to do these things.

Kind of reminds me of how wife beaters go about "see what you made me do to you? why do you do that to me" crap. Or another example would be a politician putting something totally unrelated forward and crying "think of the children", "Pedos" or "Terrorists".

Restrictive DRM was coming anyway, it offers the maggots a lot more control and strips away that silly thing (that you ahve in the US) know as "fair use"... little by little.

And as pointed out by others, my country (Sweden) has its own laws and does not have to abide by yours - even though it seems maggots from your country can (illegally) influence my country's government.

How can my government make your government do anything?

I thought you were just attacking the he made me do it argument and here you are trying to use it against me in the same post against me? I find that a little ironic.

Take that up with the EU sir not me.

I'd also like to add how many times do I have to mention in my posts that I support of fair use? I don't support of outright piracy.

The raid became controversial in Sweden when the Swedish public broadcast network, Sveriges Television, cited unnamed sources claiming that the raid was prompted by political pressure from the United States. The Swedish government allegedly was threatened with WTO trade sanctions unless action was taken against Pirate Bay.[14]

The Swedish government denied these allegations. However, a letter titled "Re: The Pirate Bay" from the MPAA to Swedish State Secretary Dan Eliasson, dated two months before the raid, hinted at trade reprisals. The letter stated, "it is certainly not in Sweden's best interests to earn a reputation as a place where utter lawlessness is tolerated." The letter went on to urge Eliasson to "exercise your influence to urge law enforcement officers in Sweden to take much needed action against The Pirate Bay."

I thought you were just attacking the he made me do it argument and here you are trying to use it against me in the same post against me? I find that a little ironic.

Take that up with the EU sir not me.

Ummm, what?

AdamM wrote:

I'd also like to add how many times do I have to mention in my posts that I support of fair use? I don't support of outright piracy.

I never said you dont support fair use, but the industry you keep taking up for does not share your support for it and has shown us time and again by their (anti-consumer) actions how they are slowly trying to whittle it away

edit: (and continued from above) and that too after bastardizing copyright to such an extent that they "Frankenstein-ishly" changed a sweet innocent 9 year old girl that was copyright into a 20 by 20 foot grotesque monster.

IANAL or a Judge, but reading/skimming the judges linked decision, it looks to me that a lot of homework went into the summary judgment. I guess when I hear "summary judgment" I think "snap" or "default" judgment, but in this case anyway, it looks like a lot of effort and research went into providing a basis for the decision.

I think it is pretty clear from the included quotes from Congress, that they intended the copyright holders need to identify individual cases of infringement for removal, not just a general "there is infringement, take care of it all yourself" that Viacom apparently thinks it should be. I certainly hope it stands.

The judge appeared to have no reservations that YouTube was and is doing what Congress expected when they included the the DMCA safe harbor provisions, and included examples, including the one quoted in the article.

Quote:

"The present case shows that the DMCA notification regime works efficiently," the court noted, "when Viacom over a period of months accumulated some 100,000 videos and then sent one mass take-down notice on February 2, 2007. By the next business day YouTube had removed virtually all of them."

The raid became controversial in Sweden when the Swedish public broadcast network, Sveriges Television, cited unnamed sources claiming that the raid was prompted by political pressure from the United States. The Swedish government allegedly was threatened with WTO trade sanctions unless action was taken against Pirate Bay.[14]

The Swedish government denied these allegations. However, a letter titled "Re: The Pirate Bay" from the MPAA to Swedish State Secretary Dan Eliasson, dated two months before the raid, hinted at trade reprisals. The letter stated, "it is certainly not in Sweden's best interests to earn a reputation as a place where utter lawlessness is tolerated." The letter went on to urge Eliasson to "exercise your influence to urge law enforcement officers in Sweden to take much needed action against The Pirate Bay."

I thought you were just attacking the he made me do it argument and here you are trying to use it against me in the same post against me? I find that a little ironic.

Take that up with the EU sir not me.

Ummm, what?

AdamM wrote:

I'd also like to add how many times do I have to mention in my posts that I support of fair use? I don't support of outright piracy.

I never said you dont support fair use, but the industry you keep taking up for does not share your support for it and has shown us time and again by their (anti-consumer) actions how they are slowly trying to whittle it away

edit: (and continued from above) and that too after bastardizing copyright to such an extent that they "Frankenstein-ishly" changed a sweet innocent 9 year old girl that was copyright into a 20 by 20 foot grotesque monster.

It cites unnamed sources from a broadcasting company this could of just as been easily a made up story by a group of people who were upset with the server raid you do realize that right? I'm not saying that it isn't possibly i'm just saying that the story has quite a few leaking points.

edit: (and continued from above) and that too after bastardizing copyright to such an extent that they "Frankenstein-ishly" changed a sweet innocent 9 year old girl that was copyright into a 20 by 20 foot grotesque monster.

Nice analogy, but it seem to me to be more like changing the cute little bat that eats the mosquitos before they can bite you, into a mythical vampire bat that sucks your blood and never dies...

But yeah, Frankenstein works too. The copyright that could never die, because more and more gets sewn onto the beast.

the economic sanctions via the WTO if Switzerland didn't crack down on the Pirate Bay don't bother me. They agreed to certain terms to join the WTO; if the Pirate Bay's existence violates those terms then being penalized by the agreed upon methods (whatever they are) is entirely in line. No one forced them to join the WTO; they're free to withdraw if they wish too. They just can't be part of the WTO while not adhering to it's rules. I'm assuming here that the Pirate Bay's MO (i.e pissing on copyright) does in fact violate some article/rule/what have you that the WTO holds. If it doesn't then yeah it's an abuse of power.

The artistic community is being obliterated - - but the computer industry is thriving -- life is good for some people.

I'm glad to see the artistic community, meaning Viacom and similar conglomerates, utterly destroyed. As a business, they are worthless scum (this is not intended as a slight against the many fine individuals who work there).

I'm also glad to see certain artists succeed wildly, and greatly enjoy buying products from them. They are providing a great service to the community and many deserve the greatest rewards.

By the way, I never saw you crying tears for Real Media after the MPAA sabotaged their business with bogus charges of DMCA violation over a home media system that wasn't even effective for piracy. Cases like those show that Viacom is not fighting some selfless fight against the dragon piracy to save their fair artist maidens. They are leveraging thoroughly encrypted media to reap massive profits through restraint of trade, monopoly abuse, and cartel politics.

Edit: Paul, the issue with the WTO is that the international community has become a place where bad copyright law is enforced with a net of treaties which prevent any one nation from enacting decent law in its place. This serves to enforce the status quo and leaves us slaves of the imbeciles who enacted such law in the first place.

the economic sanctions via the WTO if Switzerland didn't crack down on the Pirate Bay don't bother me. They agreed to certain terms to join the WTO; if the Pirate Bay's existence violates those terms then being penalized by the agreed upon methods (whatever they are) is entirely in line. No one forced them to join the WTO; they're free to withdraw if they wish too. They just can't be part of the WTO while not adhering to it's rules. I'm assuming here that the Pirate Bay's MO (i.e pissing on copyright) does in fact violate some article/rule/what have you that the WTO holds. If it doesn't then yeah it's an abuse of power.

As a response to this, here is a response from WTO when European Parliament queried them about ACTA.

The things I get out of this text is that ACTA was only negotiated by subset of WTO without much input from other WTO members. I don't know if this is standard procedure but I personally find it odd that a subset of WTO can impose such decision on all other members without their input.

That said, I'm more concerned that MPAA has so much influence over US Government that it can prompt the US Government to threaten economic sanction to Swedish Government.

the economic sanctions via the WTO if Switzerland didn't crack down on the Pirate Bay don't bother me. They agreed to certain terms to join the WTO; if the Pirate Bay's existence violates those terms then being penalized by the agreed upon methods (whatever they are) is entirely in line. No one forced them to join the WTO; they're free to withdraw if they wish too. They just can't be part of the WTO while not adhering to it's rules. I'm assuming here that the Pirate Bay's MO (i.e pissing on copyright) does in fact violate some article/rule/what have you that the WTO holds. If it doesn't then yeah it's an abuse of power.

A bit of topic, but please keep your countries right. Switzerland is not and has never been Sweden.

As for the WTO, they do have rules about Copyright. Which is at least part of the reason India was so upset about the way ACTA. They currently meet the WTO rules but would be pressured to abide the more draconian ACTA rules, even though they had no input and were not involved in the negotiations.

the economic sanctions via the WTO if Switzerland didn't crack down on the Pirate Bay don't bother me. They agreed to certain terms to join the WTO; if the Pirate Bay's existence violates those terms then being penalized by the agreed upon methods (whatever they are) is entirely in line. No one forced them to join the WTO; they're free to withdraw if they wish too. They just can't be part of the WTO while not adhering to it's rules. I'm assuming here that the Pirate Bay's MO (i.e pissing on copyright) does in fact violate some article/rule/what have you that the WTO holds. If it doesn't then yeah it's an abuse of power.

As a response to this, here is a response from WTO when European Parliament queried them about ACTA.

The things I get out of this text is that ACTA was only negotiated by subset of WTO without much input from other WTO members. I don't know if this is standard procedure but I personally find it odd that a subset of WTO can impose such decision on all other members without their input.

That said, I'm more concerned that MPAA has so much influence over US Government that it can prompt the US Government to threaten economic sanction to Swedish Government.

Years of concerted schmoozing and lobbying effort by Hollywood and its fellow industries have convinced an array of politicians that economic prosperity for the United States will come out of blackmailing poorer countries into saddling themselves with onerous copyright law that lasts not for decades but rather over a century. To them, our media represent giant storehouses of grain which we can parcel out to a starving world a rotten bushel at a time in exchange for every penny they have. Their ideas are bankrupt but the promise of wealth is too strong for the greedy to resist.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.